How did the case come to court? In December ... the United Nations general assembly adopted a resolution [requesting] the International Court of Justice at the Hague, to "urgently render an advisory opinion on ... the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel" ... Nations were given until January 30 to file petitions to the court ... While the petitions at this stage remain secret, it has been disclosed that the European Union and the United States ... are against the case being heard by the ICJ ... claiming ... that it is outside the remit of the court.
· Editorial in Gulf News, United Arab Emirates, February 7

Which laws are alleged to have been broken?It has been alleged that the wall is in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and International Human Rights Instruments. Article 147 of the former defines extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity, and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, as a "grave breach". Israel disputes these allegations and claims that the route of the wall has been determined by "military and operational" considerations. · Paul Troop in the Times, February 10

Why is Israel boycotting the hearing?[It] ... argues that the ICJ has no jurisdiction - adding that, even if it does, it should decline to hear the request for an opinion ... The court has no jurisdiction, they add, because the query before the court is too vague and uncertain to be a "legal question". And what is meant by "legal consequences"? For whom? In any event, they conclude, ICJ case-law backs the UK-US view that the court does not give advisory opinions when one of the parties to a dispute refuses to take part in the proceedings. · Joshua Rozenberg in the Daily Telegraph, February 12

What if the court rules the fence illegal?If Israel loses the case, the fence issue will go back to the UN general assembly, which will then likely kick it to the security council seeking sanctions against Israel ... In this case Israel could, with active diplomacy and help from the US, very well garner the six votes or abstentions needed to block the resolution on the 15-nation security council. · Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post, February 10

Are there any other cases brought against Israel on this matter?[A] case was brought by two Israeli human rights groups before Israel's supreme court [last Monday]. The heart of their argument ... is that Israel has the right to defend itself against attacks and build a barrier, but the fence's route should hew as closely as possible to the 1967 borders ... The legal petitions against the fence plan make good points. So much so that Israel's government agreed, even before the conclusion of the case, to begin making "minor modifications" to the fence route. · Editorial in Newsday, New York, February 10

What are the modifications?It is possible that parts of the fence that have been approved but not yet built will move westward toward the Green Line ... [And], according to the state's submission to the court, there will be specific changes in the route of the already built fence ... Two places where decisions have already been made to make changes are in the Baka al Sharkiye area and the village of Jirbat Jabara. · Yuval Yoaz in Haaretz, Israel, February 10

Why has Israel made these changes?Israel also hopes to make the project more palatable to US officials, who have objected to its meandering route through land that Israel captured during the 1967 Middle East war and that the Palestinians claim for a future state. Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, hopes to travel to Washington in coming weeks to meet with President George Bush. · Ken Ellingwood in the Los Angeles Times, February 10

How have the Palestinians reacted to the route changes?The Palestinians ... consistently say that they will accept nothing less than what other Arabs received in exchange for peace (or, at least, quiet) with Israel ... Palestinians demand withdrawal to the international border (ie, the pre-1967 lines) - no ifs, ands, or buts. · MJ Rosenberg in the Israel Insider, February 12